Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
If Vito Spatafore Had Only Waited a Few Months...
New
Hampshire is about
to join the New England gay union bloc:
New Hampshire lawmakers voted Thursday to authorize civil unions and sent the measure to Gov. John Lynch, who announced last week that he would sign it.
... the success of civil unions was an about-face from two years earlier, when a study panel recommended New Hampshire give no meaningful consideration to extending legal recognition to gay couples.
That panel had concluded that homosexuality was a choice, and it endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. State lawmakers have defeated proposed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage two years in a row.
Thursday's legislation, passed 14-10 along party lines in the Senate -- Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed -- will allow civil unions in New Hampshire starting Jan. 1.
That's the backstory -- Democrats opened a ACME novelty-sized brand of whup-ass on the New Hampshire GOP last year. The state Republicans haven't budged on the issue, but they've become irrelevant.
|4.26.07 @ 1:17PM|#
It's stunning to me how quickly the country is flipping on this
question.
If there are any old people reading this, is this what happened
when segregration was toppled?
|4.26.07 @ 1:30PM|#
The state Republicans haven't budged on the issue, but
they've become irrelevant.
They dug their own grave, because they hitched their wagons to the
national GOP. They even sent out a pre-election "Democrats =
Terrorists" mailing. Dumb dumb dumb.
It's unfortunate, because the Democrats are now rushing to do
everything they can to put in place all of their pet nanny-state
items, including adult seatbelt laws and smoking bans and even
fines for balloon releasing.
At the same time, they are also making every effort to shift as
much school spending from the local to the state level, while
claiming they can do this without implementing a broad based
tax.
Looks like the Free Staters should've picked Wyoming.
|4.26.07 @ 2:00PM|#
MP:
Thanks for the link with a poem fit for H&R.
To Democrat reps we are buffoons, who are not careful with our
balloons.
Now there will be a criminal fine, when balloons come loose from
the twine.
So no longer will babes alone cry, when their helium balloons
untie.
Their parents also will shed some tears, at the loss of freedoms
once so dear.
It sounds like the NH Dems are getting all their ideas from the
Maine Dems. We've got
seat belt laws, 55% of school funding coming from the state,
and a smoking ban in bars. No balloon bans yet, but I'm sure that
will be next.
VM|4.26.07 @ 2:04PM|#
That's a good question, joe.
Knee jerk reaction to this: "WOO HOO! One level of systematic,
government-supported bigotry/bullying crap eliminated!"
(thinking this is moving towards getting gov't out of the business
altogether)
When two people are in a loving, mutually-supportive relationship,
but because of some government rule they may not enjoy certain
privileges.... That make for angry moose. Don't make moose get all
Lenny on you, what with moose's laser antlers and all!
dhex|4.26.07 @ 2:05PM|#
"If there are any old people reading this, is this what happened
when segregration was toppled?"
i asked someone that the other day, though in slightly nicer terms.
answer: sort of!
believe it|4.26.07 @ 2:19PM|#
I demand the licensing of same sex HETEROSEXUAL marriages. I want the benefits of marriage but I don't want to marry a chick and I'm not gay.
|4.26.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Let's head off the "gay marriage = big government" argument
right now.
Imagine that Jews were not allowed to own businesses. The New
Hampshire legislature then passed a bill allowing them to own
businesses.
Think about the expansion of government that would require - all of
those additional corporations would now have rights, file
paperwork, take corporate tax breaks, and maybe even apply for
loans from the Small Business Adiminstration.
|4.26.07 @ 2:24PM|#
releasing balloons is littering which is the most flippant
disregard for property rights that i can imagine.
not that there needs to be a special anti-balloon release law.
|4.26.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Let's head off the "gay marriage = big government" argument
right now.
No fair! M. Montag hasn't shown up yet.
ed|4.26.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I demand the licensing of same sex HETEROSEXUAL
marriages
I don't think so, b i. The voters won't understand it, Bill
O'Reilly will release his posse on your ass and the gays will
accuse you of me-tooism.
|4.26.07 @ 2:34PM|#
If there are any old people reading this, is this what
happened when segregration was toppled?
Does being 10 and watching the race riots on TV count as being old
enough?
So to give a weasel-like answer. Many things changed very quickly
between '65 and '75. However, many things still are with us. Laws
can be written and signed in a matter of months. Changing hearts
and souls takes generations.
|4.26.07 @ 2:39PM|#
It's stunning to me how quickly the country is flipping on
this question.
I'm yet to see 'the country' flip on this yet. Get back to me when
you see those areas flip where people voted 70%+ amend their state
constitution.
is this what happened when segregration was toppled?
This shit is so laughable.
VikingMoose|4.26.07 @ 2:43PM|#
SAM - quick! somebody just called! they're looking for you back at the group home. And they said to stop trying to "do UFC" moves in the bathroom.
|4.26.07 @ 2:46PM|#
is this what happened when segregration was
toppled?
This shit is so laughable.
Segregation ended when a substantial portion of church-going white
folks decided it was flat out immoral to treat blacks as
sub-humans.
So far, many of those same church-going white folks are dead set
against gay marriage on "moral grounds".
So yes, the comparison is of little validity.
|4.26.07 @ 2:46PM|#
"I'm yet to see 'the country' flip on this yet."
Hence the use of the present-tense "is flipping" verb.
"Get back to me when you see those areas flip where people voted
70%+ amend their state constitution."
Mmmm. Because that would be the only indication of any movement
whatsoever. But, ok. See in 8-10 years.
Within our lifetimes, S.A.M., people like you are going to be
formulating Thurmondesque explainations about how much you always
liked gay people.
|4.26.07 @ 2:48PM|#
carrick,
The Episcopalian, Reform Jewish, and Methodist churches marry gay
couples already. An openly gay Espiscopal biship was named head of
the church in the U.S.A.
It's a deep drive to Left...going...going...
|4.26.07 @ 3:01PM|#
The Episcopalian, Reform Jewish, and Methodist churches
marry gay couples already.
And as a libertarian, I applaud their positions on this matter.
However, there are still many deeply religious people that accept
equality for all races, but can't wrap their minds around equality
for gay people. Appealing to their religious beliefs is not having
as much effect as it did way back when regarding black
people.
Today, only a few, out-there religious types think their religion
supports segregation. Unfortunately, I am afraid discrimination
against gays is going to stay in the mainstream for much longer
than it took to overcome segregation.
|4.26.07 @ 3:05PM|#
people like you are going to be formulating Thurmondesque
explainations about how much you always liked gay people
You are quite incorrect. This has nothing do do with "liking gay
people." Consenting adults can do whatever they want to do.
This is about turning the institution of family and marriage on its
head. This is an argument that I am sure will get little support
around here, but it is correct none the less.
I think it is more likely that people like you, Joe, will have to
explain how this was a priority when we see what happens to
marriage.
An openly gay Espiscopal biship was named head of the church in
the U.S.A.
You mean the same Episcopal church that is loosing members in
droves and is about to split over this very issue? Yeah, sure looks
like it is gaining momentum to me.
Jennifer|4.26.07 @ 3:18PM|#
This is about turning the institution of family and marriage
on its head.
No, this is about the government deciding to grant privileges to
certain people while denying the same privileges to certain other
people. Now, finally, people are beginning to consider the idea "if
government's going to pass out privileges, it should do so
equally."
I still think churches should be entirely free to refuse to perform
religious marriage ceremonies that offend their sensibilities, of
course. And they are.
D.A. Ridgely|4.26.07 @ 3:19PM|#
If there are any old people reading this, is this what
happened when segregration was toppled?
Old?
And, no, the Episcopal Church does not (yet) marry gay couples,
although a blessing of same sex unions, not the same thing, is
conducted in some Episcopal churches.
ktc2|4.26.07 @ 3:19PM|#
I hear that this bill legalizes line marriages as members in a "civil union" can still marry a person of the oppostite sex, and then that marriage partner may enter a "civil union", etc. ad infiniti
|4.26.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Yes SAM, you're spot on. Heterosexual marriage has declined so much here in MA since being gay was legalized that florists are out of work and no one is having babies. Every 30 something dude I know gave up chicks and started waxing his back. It's truly the decline of western civilization. Thank god we have the catholic church to keep us straight.
|4.26.07 @ 3:23PM|#
I think it is more likely that people like you, Joe, will have to explain how this was a priority when we see what happens to marriage.
Here that joe?
When more people start to get married be prepared to
explain why it was so important to allow more people to
get married!
Disclosure: I recently got married in Nov. and I doubt the symbolic
gay wedding we attended on new Years will be causation for a
divorce if the State ever recognizes our friends union.
...cause Lord knows what that will do too our sex lives if they
ever gave the right to....wait for....
....stay on target........FILE UNDER THE SAME TAX RETURN!
Noooooooo
|4.26.07 @ 3:23PM|#
You mean the same Episcopal church that is loosing members
in droves and is about to split over this very issue? Yeah, sure
looks like it is gaining momentum to me.
my wife and I started attending an episcopal church because of
their openness. so they lose some and gain some.
|4.26.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Yeah, right on MassHole! If cultural trends don't show up in a year or two then they never will!
|4.26.07 @ 3:25PM|#
FWIW, Unitarian-Universalists accept openly gay ministers and
join same sex couples in marriage and our numbers are
growing.
This guy
performed my marriage ceremony, then quit signing any marriage
licenses until he could sign anyone's marriage license. He was in
Mass when they began to allow that. He's a good guy.
Jennifer|4.26.07 @ 3:29PM|#
If cultural trends don't show up in a year or two then they
never will!
So how long do you think it will take, then, for large numbers of
people to start saying "I love this man, and I want to spend the
rest of my life with him and be the mother of this children... wait
a minute. Gays can get married too? What the fuck? Did I
just say I wanted to get married and have babies? Never mind.
Knowing gays can marry just totally ruins it for me."
VM|4.26.07 @ 3:30PM|#
High# - our minister also does more commitment ceremonies than
actual weddings. cool!
SAM - sorry. can't hear you. all of these bubbles drown you
out.
Now, get out of there before your group home's monitor finds you
playing with the computer. And for the last time, I won't send you
pictures of my freshly colored merkin. No way.
Chris|4.26.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Some of these arguments against gay marriage are offensively
stupid. I can't tell if this was sarcastic or not:
"I demand the licensing of same sex HETEROSEXUAL marriages. I want
the benefits of marriage but I don't want to marry a chick and I'm
not gay."
...but I'm gonna guess it was.
Lots of idiots have jumped onto this argument, claiming that
marriage becomes invalid just because now anyone can get married to
anyone. Guess what, assholes? Straight people who aren't in love
get married all the time, for the benefits of marriage. You don't
want to extend the right to profane marriage that heterosexuals
currently use and abuse to homosexuals? Why not? The dynamic that
gay marriage would create is already in place in heterosexual
marriages, except that the dynamic would just be gay. That's the
point. So this argument doesn't work.
As for people claiming that the institution of marriage will
crumble, well... even if it does, so what? Do you really think
society will collapse if heterocentric marriage ceases to be? What
exactly do you mean by a collapse, anyway? That heterosexual
marriages will become less unique? Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo
Try being gay your whole life, and then tell me you're worried
about heterosexual marriages become less unique.
I don't care how thoughtful you think you are, or how
non-homophobic you pretend to be - your arguments are repulsive and
offensive. Come up with something that treats gay people like human
beings if you want to argue against gay marriage, and not like
people who you think you're better than.
|4.26.07 @ 3:33PM|#
carrick,
"Unfortunately, I am afraid discrimination against gays is going to
stay in the mainstream for much longer than it took to overcome
segregation."
The first Africans were brought to the United States, as slaves,
about 300 years before the Civil Rights movement. The movement for
gay equality pretty much began in 1969.
S.A.M.,
"This is about turning the institution of family and marriage on
its head." No moreso than interracial marriages, which were also
equated with bestiality back in the good old days.
"I think it is more likely that people like you, Joe, will have to
explain how this was a priority when we see what happens to
marriage."
We've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for about four years now,
and support has only grown, both in our state and, as we're seeing,
outside of it. When people see, actually see with their own eyes,
married gay couples, two things happen: 1) they realize they're not
scary, and 2) they realize that they are a married couple. Not
room-mates, not people sharing the same address, not "consenting
adults doing whatever they want," S.A.M., but a family.
And that's the ballgame right there.
|4.26.07 @ 3:35PM|#
My wife and I were married by a gay gentleman who was a pastor in her parents Unitarian church. He also made a cool cheat sheet for me to use with my vows. That dude rocked!
VM|4.26.07 @ 3:38PM|#
"Come up with something that treats gay people like human beings
if you want to argue against gay marriage, and not like people who
you think you're better than."
sadly there are many arguments that fly around, "I'm against, cuz
the gov't should be out of marriage altogether" type of
stuff.
Two people engaging in a supportive, loving, committed relationship
shouldn't have to fight state-induced bigotry. It's even more
sickening and disheartening when it's clad in some faux limited
gov't bullshit.
When people see, actually see with their own eyes, married gay couples, two things happen: 1) they realize they're not scary, and 2) they realize that they are a married couple. Not room-mates, not people sharing the same address, not "consenting adults doing whatever they want," S.A.M., but a family.
QUOTED FOR TRUTH!!!! Well spake! A family. Supportive, loving,
caring.
Yeaaaaaa!
|4.26.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Wow, I haven't been here in a bit; I didn't know H&R had
picked up a back-up hitter for M Montag.
SAM: "This is about turning the institution of family and marriage
on its head. This is an argument...". That's not an argument; it's
a conclusion wrapped in a metaphor, but I'm sure it's a strong
argument to you.
Marriage (and family) have not changed, but who qualifies for it
has. Years ago, different races couldn't marry, now they can. Gays
can't marry; now in a few places they can.
And my favorite "doom doom doooooom" line: "how this was a priority
when we see what happens to marriage." You mean when straight white
Christians stop marrying, divorcing, and having abortions at the
high rates they are now? And for people who don't really exist
(since many claim being gay is a choice), you sure are afraid of
what we'll do to the other 95-odd% of the country aren't you? If
marriage is failing, then why on earth is a group of people saying,
"We would like to partake in that great institution you have,"
possibly a bad thing? We don't want to tear anything down; we want
in. Quite simply, you just want us kept out.
|4.26.07 @ 3:47PM|#
I'm a married man, S.A.M., with a wife and a daughter. My
parents were married till death did them part. My sisters got
married, my neighors, my aunts and uncles. I know what marriage is,
and I know the difference between marriage, having a sexual
relationship, and shacking up.
Once upon a time, I was agaisnt gay marriage - though always for
equal rights under the law - because I felt that the same sex
aspect prevented such a union from being an actual marriage. Then I
started seeing married gay couples. I know what married means,
S.A.M. I know what married people act like, and look like, and live
like, and how they're different from non-married couples.
And I changed my mind, because those people were just sooooooo
totally married. They just are, S.A.M., even if you'd prefer they'd
not be.
The general public's belief that gay couples can't really be in a
marriage isn't based on the rational (though wrong) public policy
concerns you read in National Review, but on the same emotional
incomprehension that my own opposition was based on, and I gotta
tell you - it doesn't stand a chance when it comes up against the
lived experience of seeing an actual gay marriage.
|4.26.07 @ 3:52PM|#
joe I can never understand what point you are trying to make,
and I don't really feel like arguing with you today. This is my
last post on the subject.
So, slavery goes back three hundred years in US history. It was
ended a century and a half ago. The civil rights movement picked up
steam in the 60's and pretty much overturned legal segregation in
the 10 years after that. Many Jewish and Christian organization
played a big part in this effort.
Gay marriage has been banned by the Catholic Church for a couple of
thousand years. The gay rights movement has been going for a couple
of decades. Organized religion seems to be split along deep lines
on this issue, and the issue is causing deep division within some
denominations.
Other than the fact there was a tipping point in the segregation
era, and there will likely be a tipping point in the gay rights
era, I don't see the two movements as being all that similar from a
religious point of view.
|4.26.07 @ 3:55PM|#
You brought up religion, carrick. I just followed up, poiting out that even in the allegedly strongest bastion of anti-gay ideology, change was happening, and all of it in my direction.
metalgrid|4.26.07 @ 3:55PM|#
You mean the same Episcopal church that is loosing members
in droves and is about to split over this very issue? Yeah, sure
looks like it is gaining momentum to me.
The funny thing is that a lot of christian churches are losing
members in the US. I see that as a good thing - just means that
freedom is on the march and they aren't being forced to attend.
Church attendance is gradually declining in the US and most of the
new converts are happening outside the US.
The Episcopal church isn't exactly bleeding folks any more than the
Catholics or the Baptists. However they are all in panic mode that
their coffers are slowly drying up.
|4.26.07 @ 4:32PM|#
"Democrats opened a ACME novelty-sized brand of whup-ass on the
New Hampshire GOP last year. The state Republicans haven't budged
on the issue, but they've become irrelevant."
The Democrat Party: Freedom and socialism, together at last!
|4.26.07 @ 5:10PM|#
*sound of bubbles from Formula 409 drowns out the fake tough guy*
are you the same S.A.M. who comments at chicagoist?
if so, one wonders what neighborhood you live in.
Indeed, Mr. Crane. Indeed.
Funny. S.A.M. sounds like a conservative dipshit, but he
isn't publicly wondering where someone lives. Who's the real
internet tough-guy?
D.A. Ridgely|4.26.07 @ 5:18PM|#
The Episcopal church isn't exactly bleeding folks any more
than the Catholics or the Baptists. However they are all in panic
mode that their coffers are slowly drying up.
Not so. The Episcopal Church has been "bleeding folks," both as a
percentage of the church attending population and in absolute
numbers since the late 1960s. It's well on its way in terms of
membership from once being denomination to a sect on its way to
becoming a cult. The same demographic trend cannot be said about
either Roman Catholics or Baptists.
|4.26.07 @ 5:28PM|#
fractional bee:
this isn't tough-guy ism, it's a legitimate wonder. much of the
north side of chicago is remarkably gay; it's surprising that
someone who (presumably; the commentors at chicagoist are
overwhelmingly north siders) is exposed to gay/lesbian people
living in quiet domestic bliss would have such opinions on gay
marriage.
|4.26.07 @ 5:55PM|#
I can think of a number of good reasons to expect civil equality
for gays to move quite a bit faster than it did for blacks:
1) Since gayness isn't (usually) immediately apparent, straight
people will frequently form friendly acquaintanceships with openly
gay people before finding out that they're gay. Combine this with
an at least nominal opposition to "bigotry" (which most of us
have), and it becomes a lot harder to self-justify cutting off a
budding friendship than it would be to simply never associate with
someone of an obviously different ethnic group.
2) Increased acceptance of gays poses almost no economic threat to
the current "in-group", at least not relative to the huge threat to
whites of increased opportunity for blacks in skilled labor, small
business, and the like.
3) Gay people are naturally distributed throughout families, making
it impossible to maintain the kind of natural segregation into
racial communities that is still very common.
4) Assuming that homosexuality is genetically hard-wired or at
least almost always a fixed trait prior to adolescence, then
"coming out" serves as a filter, in a way that seems like it would
help the movement. Whereas dysfunctional members of racial
minorities cannot help but be identified as such in the news, the
gay people garnering the most attention are and will continue to be
well above the median in intelligence and virtue.
Maybe some of these are misguided. Just throwing them out there for
the more enlightened to evaluate...
|4.26.07 @ 5:56PM|#
Plenty of North Side neighborhoods are not "remarkably gay."
Polish neighborhoods, the neighborhood around Harlem & Foster
where all the cops and city workers live - remarkably not
gay.
(btw, I love that: "remarkably gay." My buddy Thurston is
remarkably gay. We affectionately refer to him as "flaming." From
now on, I will use "remarkably gay" so as not to offend more
sensitive types, of which Thurston is NOT one.)
|4.26.07 @ 6:14PM|#
this isn't tough-guy ism, it's a legitimate wonder. much of the north side of chicago is remarkably gay; it's surprising that someone who (presumably; the commentors at chicagoist are overwhelmingly north siders) is exposed to gay/lesbian people living in quiet domestic bliss would have such opinions on gay marriage.
My mistake - not knowing that, I took an entirely different meaning
from your exchange. I'm sorry.
|4.26.07 @ 6:14PM|#
there's a clear difference between north side and northwest side, high#. technically, some would argue that any address west of the river is actually on the west side. i'm not sure i find this valid (see ravenswood/albany park) - but harlem/foster is certainly more west than north.
|4.26.07 @ 6:32PM|#
Good point. There are some blue collar and/or ethnic
neighborhoods up north, though. Overall, I agree with you - if you
live on the North Side, you are not far from a gay enclave, so to
speak.
Oak Park - totally gay & West Siii-iiide!
VM|4.26.07 @ 6:42PM|#
Good Call Mr. Crane.
and Mr. Highnumber recommends Hemmingway's Cafe. (with 2 "M"s, not
one, of course).
:)
Our old neighborhood - Lincoln Square (hier)
was exactly that - different couples from different walks of life
in yuppie bliss. Was lots of fun, except for Maifest and
Oktoberfest.
Mr. Crane's point definitely works in that neighborhood.
cheers!
|4.26.07 @ 7:00PM|#
Bistro, dude.
Hemmingway's Bistro
I loved getting drunk at Oktoberfest in your old
neighborhood.
Some friends lived there 3 years ago, give or take, and they had
serious problems with crime. Their apartment was broken into
repeatedly. Irreplaceable objects stolen, sad story. They had a few
months to go before the big move out to Hollywood to become movie
stars, and they refused to stay in Lincoln Square. They put
everything into storage and slept on someone's floor rather than
remain in their apartment.
Never jibed with the impression I had of Lincoln Square as a quiet,
nice neighborhood. We even considered looking at places there
before their troubles. Did you have problems there?
VM|4.26.07 @ 7:15PM|#
ohnoes!
no we didn't have troubles there, at all. Do you know where they
lived? "Lincoln Square" is similar to "Lincoln Park", a
neighborhood whose name extends far beyond its boundaries :)
We were in the area three years ago (01 to 06) (right off the
square) - and had nary a problem. Our street was a family-friendly,
tree-lined one that was very pleasant. The only downside was in
winter (with the "barricades" around poorly-cleaned parking
places.
Too bad about your friends.
/kicks pebble
|4.26.07 @ 7:51PM|#
I certainly know the difference between Lincoln Square and
Lincoln Park. Sheesh!
When we were planning our wedding in 2000, I did not, however, know
that the Old Town School had moved to Lincoln Square. I got off the
el down around Old Town/Lincoln Park to meet with someone about
musicians for our ceremony. I was about 4 miles from where I needed
to be. A lesson about double checking addresses was learned.
|4.26.07 @ 8:42PM|#
"the barricades"?
surely you mean "people creating property rights on public spaces"
or however it was that one of the ReasonWriters put it, no?
it's okay dood. i know nobody respected your "reserved for BATIN"
sign, but now you live in the viagra triangle where things are
different.
cls|4.26.07 @ 9:15PM|#
It was said that laws change quickly but hearts and minds change
slowly. I tend to think in this case that hearths and minds have
changed far more than the laws have. If you add up the percentages
willing to grant either gay marriage or civil unions (but not
marriage) against those who want neither the progay side is a
majority in the country and a substantial minority in the
Theorcratic Republic of the Confederacy. If the laws
proportionately reflected the values of the public then a majority
of states would have such laws especially the two coasts and parts
of the West maybe even a few state sin the midwest. I believe that
this is a case where social attitutdes changed far faster than laws
did.
The Theopublicans know this is happening hence their desire to push
through Constitutional amendments banning equality before the law
for gay couples. Constitutional amendments, as opposed to
regulations, are harder to change. The amendment campaign is a
concession that society is changing on this matter and an attempt
to delay the inevitable as long as possible.
VM|4.27.07 @ 10:15AM|#
hrumph.
High# -
Ohnoez again! Wasn't trying to say, suggest, or imply that! ohnoes
(bites self on taint)
I was trying to say that people claim to live there, even when they
don't. A cow-orker (sic) of mine lived in Lakeview (for non
chicagoians - basically near Wrigley Field), and she always claimed
that she lived in "Lincoln Park"
hey crane - viagra triangle? nice! Here we have privately-reserved
BATIN stalls.
But gay marriage should be legal. Period.
cls - even though hearts and minds change slowly, I thought that a
combination of shock and awe wins hearts and minds... hmmmm.
*brays happily. ambles back into wooded grove
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245